Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Thanks . . . I guess

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Thanks . . . I guess Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Thanks . . . I guess - 10/5/2016 1:00:32 AM   
dwbennett

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 1/29/2012
Status: offline
If one of the purposes of this game is to show me convincingly that NATO would have been up the creek with out the proverbial paddle if the Warsaw PACT invaded, it has succeeded. I've only made it though four scenarios so far and have only ecked out a draw once with the rest of the games ending in my force reduced to below 30%. The only way, I guess, I got a draw is I mistakenly played a head-to-head scenario with me as NATO against the AI.

I now firmly believe Custer had it easy. In most of the games I played so far, the Warsaw Pact doesn't have to kill my forces with gun fire or artillery; all they have to do is run over my units as they are just too many to kill. And issuing Roman candles to the AD units instead of Stinger missiles would have had the same effect of hitting enemy aircraft and revealng the firing units location plus being a lot cheaper. Yes, yes, I know. The helos are using terrain masking, etc. but you'd think the continuous Stinger firing would make one of them lose control and fly into the ground at least.

Oh, I like the game but expecting to win consistantly as the NATO player is, well, wishful thinking.

As a side note: I was stationed in Darmstadt from 1970-71, in a combat engineer unit. Our main function (I figured out pretty quickly) was to bridge the Rhine River when the ballon went up as the Warsaw PACT would drop all the bridges over the river to slow reinforcements from west of the Rhine. From the training we went through, given the avaiability of the bridge components, our batallion could have thrown a bridge across in about 8-10 hours given no interference. Something tells me that it would not have been easy.

< Message edited by dwbennett -- 10/12/2016 11:36:36 PM >


_____________________________

Don Bennett
Evanston, WY
Post #: 1
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/5/2016 1:10:09 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
Don, thanks for posting. The game does show a very tough situation and we think it does a decent job of modeling the conflict. The scenarios are designed to be challenging and realistic. We want the player to be the force commander and plan the battle. Most of the scenarios can be won (at a cost most of the time) with good planning and control of your force. There are a number of great AARs and informative posts on how to fight in the forums. There are also a good number of players and Developers here who can answer any questions you may have.

Enjoy the game!

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to dwbennett)
Post #: 2
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/8/2016 1:06:45 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbennett

If one of the purposes of this game is to show me convincingly that NATO would have been up the creek with out the proverbial paddle if the Warsaw PACT invaded, it has succeeded. I've only made it though four scenarios so far and have only ecked out a draw once with the rest of the games ending in my force reduced to below 30%. The only way, I guess, I got a draw is I mistakenly played a head-to-head scenario with me as NATO against the AI.



One of the main purposes of the game is to show the unit and equipment of the time period as realistically as possible. 1989 is the year that NATO thought it could fight a 'conventional' battle with the Warsaw Pact and win. That simply means they didn't have to nuke half of West Germany to stop a Warsaw Pact attack.

When I playtest a scenario for balance as soon as I get a draw I consider it balanced and stop tweaking. Since I don't play as much as most of you that means there is plenty of wiggle room. The War Room Section (above) is full of advice on how to kill Soviets and win as NATO. It's not easy but it's far from impossible.


quote:


I now firmly believe Custer had it easy. In most of the games I played so far, the Warsaw Pact doesn't have to kill my forces with gun fire or artillery; all they have to do is run over my units as they are just too many to kill. And issuing Roman candles to the AD units instead of Stinger missiles would have had the same effect of hitting enemy aircraft and revealng the firing units location plus being a lot cheaper. Yes, yes, I know. The helos are using terrain masking, etc. but you'd think the continuous Stinger firing would make one of them lose control and fly into the ground at least.


The Soviet doctrine from decades has been masses of troops and equipment to overrun the enemy. Their WW2 experiences simply showed them they were right. It's a war of attrition anytime you fight them.

What version of the game are you playing? The current version has a good Air Defense resolution. Some earlier ones did not.



quote:


Oh, I like the game but expecting to win consistantly as the NATO player is, well, wishful thinking.



No, it's not wishful thinking. What it comes down to is different thinking. If you are reacting to the Soviets then you are pretty much done. They will get there 'Firstest with the Mostest' on you and win. You have to beat them to the spot.

What that means is, and I know this is going to sound strange in a wargame but you have actually use recon. And preferably not Recon by Death where you simply send units out to die. Recon shows you where the enemy is. It will show you the concentration of his units. Don't believe the bean count - the AI will lie to you about how many there are. Once you get the direction of the Soviet attack determined smash the spearhead. Smash it with everything you have. Stop the advance. Between artillery and kill zone ambushes you can extract a tremendous price from them. Often to the point of them attriting out. Keep your artillery on the move. It will shoot and scoot on it's own. You can interrupt that sequence but unless you have a really 'absolutely must fire at this target' I wouldn't.

Fire at HQ's at every opportunity. They will show up in different ways. They won't be marked as an HQ for you go 'Oh, gee look what I found!' They will have Jeeps or Trucks as the symbol. They will usually be very large targets and last but not least the Fire Control Center will find and target them automatically for you when they find them.

Artillery is the key to this whole deal. In both World Wars artillery was the main killer. This time period is no different. Fire artillery every single time you can. Even if you don't kill anything it eats away at a unit's efficiency and they will take more time to respond to orders.

As an ex-Combat Engineer (which I also am, I served in the 23rd Engr Bn with the 3rd AD 74-77) you know about smoke and mines. Use smoke to cover your units either in ambush, to blind the enemy or to retreat. There aren't a lot of smoke rounds in the game so use them wisely but use them in all critical situations. FASCAM mines are an instant minefield that does two things. It puts mines where you want them and it tells the Soviet AI there is a minefield there. Putting mines where you want them gives you obvious results. Telling the Soviets they are there can give you not so obvious results. By knowing the mines are there the Soviet AI will try to avoid them. So, you can channel the Soviets away from a point you don't want them to go to a place where you are ready and waiting.

NOTE: The AI doesn't cheat and this is the one time that both players maybe aware of an action.

BLOW BRIDGES if you are NATO. Again, as an ex-Combat Engineer I shouldn't have to explain the values of this one.
ALL units in the game can blow a bridge.

Disregard VP locations. Do not try to garrison them!!! Use them as bait to draw the Soviets into Kill Zones and ambush locations. If you get to the tipping point you can go back and recapture some of those lost later. Get your points in kills. There are generally far more points in the enemy forces than there are in Victory Points.

So, generally speaking, can NATO win? Yes, and I believe the scenarios are actually tilted a bit in their favor.
Is it hard to win as NATO? It can be, but it's certainly not impossible. Play A Time to Dance until you get at least a draw with that one. It's tough because you lack a lot of artillery but you can learn to do ambushes, smoke etc and most importantly you can play it several times in rapid succession. Trying different things each time. Don't try playing larger scenarios until you can win some of the smaller ones. Then take the gloves off and go to war!!!

Hope this helps.



quote:


As a side note: I was stationed in Darmstadt from 1970-71, in a combat engineer unit. Our main function (I figured out pretty quickly) was to bridge the Rhine River when the ballon went up as the Warsaw PACT would drop all the bridges over the river to slow reinforcements from west of the Rhine. From the training we went through, given the avaiability of the bridge components, our batallion could have thrown a bridge across in about 8-10 hours given no interference. Something tells me that it would have been easy.


I was stationed with the 3rd Armored Division in Hanau (74-77), with the 23rd Engineer Bn. We had a bridging company and were supported by Brigade level bridging Bn's as well. It is my experience that bridging the Rhine under wartime conditions would have been anything but easy. The one time we did it in the 3 years I was there was extremely difficult. But we did it with MAB units and not a Bailey, so depends on which bridging equipment you were using.

Good Hunting.

MR


< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 10/8/2016 1:15:21 PM >


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to dwbennett)
Post #: 3
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/12/2016 11:51:01 PM   
dwbennett

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 1/29/2012
Status: offline
MR, I noted that I didn't put the "not" in the last sentence of my post (since fixed). No, it would NOT have been easy to throw a bridge across the Rhine. We'd have been hit with every thing the Reds could spare.

As far as blowing bridges, I played the Thor's Hammer scenario with the Brits and that was the first thing I did; send the units to blow every bridge around. I ended up with a minor victory with 20% of my force left (I kept playing afte the 30% message).

Our bridging was the Class 60 system with a bridge deck on a pontoon. It took, oh, maybe 40-50 of the pontoons to get across the river, I can't remember for sure. The system was really just a little upgrade from the WWII bridge systems; nothing like today's systems.

I'll keep working with the game.

Take care,

< Message edited by dwbennett -- 10/13/2016 6:50:36 PM >


_____________________________

Don Bennett
Evanston, WY

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 4
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/13/2016 3:09:00 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
We had pontoon bridges too. We also had the ribbon bridge as well as MAB's and Bailey Bridges. The battalion had a company that was specifically for bridging.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to dwbennett)
Post #: 5
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/15/2016 4:04:17 AM   
SKeeM


Posts: 17
Joined: 5/25/2006
From: NYC
Status: offline
Don I am an ex tanker and have trained for and studied this conflict since 1990 and was always under the impression it would have been a good fight but victory would have been ours for sure. When I bought this game I got destroyed game after game.Then I started looking into the stats for the tanks and thought these guys are crazy! Russian tanks are not that good. So I started doing some research and picked up a whole bunch of books and came to the conclusion that they have it right, I just didn't know what I was doing. So I started working on my tactics and after a bunch of lumps I was able to play through the American campaign with all major victories. These fine gentlemen have done a great job putting together a fair representation of what it would have been like and how it could have gone. It is one of my favorite games and I always come back to it. Just give it time and try working on your tactics. I have much respect for all the hard work that has gone into this sim

_____________________________


(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 6
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/15/2016 1:45:24 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Putin says "I can't understand why your citizens are panicking about the impending doom. We are heading to an irreversible decision"

LINK

When Britain ahs someone like Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary and the USA with it's possible issues it doesn't look to healthy

_____________________________


(in reply to SKeeM)
Post #: 7
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/15/2016 2:55:14 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
SKeeM, thanks for the kind words. We like the way the game plays now, but I think the new update that's coming will play even better than 2.0.10b. We fixed a number of bugs, tweaks some things and added a handful of new features.

We also know we have areas to improve on as we go forward working on Southern Storm.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 8
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/15/2016 5:49:05 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
SKeeM,

I'm sure we don't have all of it right. There is just too much data for any single data base to be 100% correct in my book. But we do never ending research. Between Cap'n Darwin, Iron Mike Golf, Rob, William, Cbelva and myself we have literally thousands of books, life experience and website locations worth of data. And it's constantly being checked and rechecked for accuracy by anyone and everyone on the team. While we are as accurate as possible we continue to search out better information when it's available.

For those of you that have really reliable sources we would appreciate knowing of those. We probably have them but we never know where a new source may come from.

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 9
RE: Thanks . . . I guess - 10/15/2016 6:51:46 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
Also, we have had a lot of help from many of the players who have found bad values or provided better newer data and information. We are alway open to questions and challenges across the board.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Thanks . . . I guess Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.469